The Split "Captain" Thread

[radoran]

We've all been on teams with weak captains. To the best of my memory, those individuals have never been voted to that position. I can think of a couple duds who were given the job as a kind of carrot to improve their character. Didn't work.

If you have constructed a team full of knuckleheads and jokesters who just want to elect a guy who will be popular and don't care if they win or not what kind of team are you putting together!?!?

And, further, what makes you think anyone could be an effective captain of that squad no matter who chose them?

[blocker]

<br /> you have constructed a team full of knuckleheads and jokesters who just want to elect a guy who will be popular and don't care if they win or not what kind of team are you putting together!?!?<br /><br />And, further, what makes you think anyone could be an effective captain of that squad no matter who chose them<br />

I've never played on a team consisting of members who didn't care about wins. And, popularity has nothing to do with the choice of Captain. Like most people I know, I've always voted for the guy I thought would give us the best chance of winning.

Edited August 19, 2013 by blocker

[radoran]

I don't know about you, but I've never played on a team consisting of members who didn't care about wins. And, popularity has nothing to do with the choice of Captain. Like most people I know, I've always voted for the guy I thought would give us the best chance of winning.

Entirely my fault for the bad choice of pronouns...

If one has constructed a team full of knuckleheads and jokesters who just want to elect a guy who will be popular and don't care if they win or not what kind of team are they putting together!?!?

And, further, what makes one think anyone could be an effective captain of that squad no matter who chose them?

[aziz]

Takes judgement to know when to be a buffer or a ramrod for the coach. You need to be able to judge which players require pats or prods. Those duties are less complicated for a Captain who was chosen by his teammates.

that's really well said, but i don't think it terribly far fetched that a lot of players would themselves choose someone who tended towards "buffer" and "pats" and away from "ramrod" and "prods".

[ruxpin]

Maybe waiting until a guy shows it at the NHL level is better than basing the decision on "he was good in Juniors!"?

Sorry if I'm taking this line out of context; I haven't read the whole thread. I saw the "split captain" thread and thought it was referring to Giroux's finger.

Anyway, how does one KNOW whether a player is going to be a good NHL captain until actually making him an NHL captain and giving him the opportunity to succeed or fail? Not trying to be a smart ass; I'm seriously asking.

I mean, it's been pointed out that Crosby was a captain very young. At not quite 22, he was carrying the Stanley Cup as captain of the Pens.

The same year, on the same date, Richards was 24 and captain of the Flyers...who were golfing.

We can go through a laundry list of other young players who were captain. Some made it. Some didn't. But I think we can likely rule out age as a factor.

Maybe we can look at experience prior to the NHL.

Crosby was not captain in junior hockey, to my knowledge. This may be something Giroux has going for him. Crosby was alternative captain on the 2006 World Championships team for Canada, but not THE captain.

Richards was captain for three years on Kitchener, including the Memorial Cup winner in 2003.

Okay, so previous captain experience may not prove anything; at least not in the correlation one would expect.

So, maybe we're talking team make up. Maybe Crosby had more or less vets around to help.

Crosby had 13 players on the roster 30 or older, including Guerin, Sydor, Gonchar, Satan, Sykora and Adams, among others.

Mike Richards had 7, including Knuble, Timonen, and Briere. But also people like Metropolit, Asham, and Kane (only 1 game and really shouldn't count)

If there is anywhere that factors not under Mike Richards' might have contributed to his lack of success as a captain, it's here. I don't think he had ENOUGH veteran support. (As frame of reference, Yzerman was made captain of the Red Wings at age 21 in 1986-87 and had only 6 players 30 or older. 4 of them were defensemen. We know how long it took HIS teams to get it together and how many years there were whispers that maybe he wasn't a good captain).

But I don't think it should have been a killer. Maybe ultimately the Flyers (and fans such as myself) were too impatient given the Yzerman lesson.

Or maybe ultimately you have to point to Richards and simply say the guy didn't get it done when he was given the opportunity. Whatever the reason, ultimately HE failed as a captain.

I argued at the time that it was unnecessarily too early for HIM. I know there was Crosby right across state, and there's a plethora of other examples of young captains. The claim HE is too young seemed to be allayed by the fact he had been captain at earlier stages. I still think it was too young for HIM. I don't think he was as quick as some with the transition from boy to man---evidenced by the Centre City partying, the inability to face questions, etc. I really don't blame him for either part. Some have to go through a process. That's why they call'em growing pains.

But for HIM it was too early and with too little support structure. It's a shame, because clearly he's become a pretty good player.

Rad, if I mistook your context, I apologize. All this to comment that if we're referring to captaincy, being "previously good" at an earlier stage is as good an indication as any as to predicting how they'll do. Ultimately, though, you'll never know until after the fact.

[ruxpin]

...and away from "ramrod" and "prods".

NTTAWWT

[blocker]

<br />of players would themselves choose someone who tended towards "buffer" and "pats" and away from "ramrod" and "prods". <br />

MMMM....Yeah, OK.

But, who's a better judge of a leader than his teammates.

[jammer2]

@ruxpin "But for HIM it was too early and with too little support structure. It's a shame, because clearly he's become a pretty good player."

I really think you're unto something there. When Richards and Carter rose through the ranks, there was not a ton of veteran leadership presence. There was some, but like you said, there was not enough. The Flyers inadvertently shot themselves in the foot by dealing guys like Justin Williams (among many others) who should have formed the core veteran leadership. Instead, the kids like Lupul, Richie, Carts etc formed the new leadership, which was fine for a while, but when the teams vision for winning the cup differed from the kiddie core, that sparked the trades.

[radoran]

Sorry if I'm taking this line out of context; I haven't read the whole thread. I saw the "split captain" thread and thought it was referring to Giroux's finger.

Anyway, how does one KNOW whether a player is going to be a good NHL captain until actually making him an NHL captain and giving him the opportunity to succeed or fail? Not trying to be a smart ass; I'm seriously asking.

I mean, it's been pointed out that Crosby was a captain very young. At not quite 22, he was carrying the Stanley Cup as captain of the Pens.

The same year, on the same date, Richards was 24 and captain of the Flyers...who were golfing.

We can go through a laundry list of other young players who were captain. Some made it. Some didn't. But I think we can likely rule out age as a factor.

Maybe we can look at experience prior to the NHL.

Crosby was not captain in junior hockey, to my knowledge. This may be something Giroux has going for him. Crosby was alternative captain on the 2006 World Championships team for Canada, but not THE captain.

Richards was captain for three years on Kitchener, including the Memorial Cup winner in 2003.

Okay, so previous captain experience may not prove anything; at least not in the correlation one would expect.

So, maybe we're talking team make up. Maybe Crosby had more or less vets around to help.

Crosby had 13 players on the roster 30 or older, including Guerin, Sydor, Gonchar, Satan, Sykora and Adams, among others.

Mike Richards had 7, including Knuble, Timonen, and Briere. But also people like Metropolit, Asham, and Kane (only 1 game and really shouldn't count)

If there is anywhere that factors not under Mike Richards' might have contributed to his lack of success as a captain, it's here. I don't think he had ENOUGH veteran support. (As frame of reference, Yzerman was made captain of the Red Wings at age 21 in 1986-87 and had only 6 players 30 or older. 4 of them were defensemen. We know how long it took HIS teams to get it together and how many years there were whispers that maybe he wasn't a good captain).

But I don't think it should have been a killer. Maybe ultimately the Flyers (and fans such as myself) were too impatient given the Yzerman lesson.

Or maybe ultimately you have to point to Richards and simply say the guy didn't get it done when he was given the opportunity. Whatever the reason, ultimately HE failed as a captain.

I argued at the time that it was unnecessarily too early for HIM. I know there was Crosby right across state, and there's a plethora of other examples of young captains. The claim HE is too young seemed to be allayed by the fact he had been captain at earlier stages. I still think it was too young for HIM. I don't think he was as quick as some with the transition from boy to man---evidenced by the Centre City partying, the inability to face questions, etc. I really don't blame him for either part. Some have to go through a process. That's why they call'em growing pains.

But for HIM it was too early and with too little support structure. It's a shame, because clearly he's become a pretty good player.

Rad, if I mistook your context, I apologize. All this to comment that if we're referring to captaincy, being "previously good" at an earlier stage is as good an indication as any as to predicting how they'll do. Ultimately, though, you'll never know until after the fact.

Crosby is the youngest captain to win a Cup for a reason.

The Pens did everything they could to make sure there was a "veteran presence" (a la Bill Guerin) around him at all times. And he accepted that.

Richards, with Pronger, apparently did not.

There might also be a reason the Pens haven't won a Cup without Crosby having a "veteran presence" around him.

That reason just might be... Crosby.

[jammer2]

@radoran "There might also be a reason the Pens haven't won a Cup without Crosby having a "veteran presence" around him."

You had me until that line. It seemed as if the whole arms race at the end of the season centered around veteran presence. Both Morrow and Iggy were long serving captains with a rep for leadership, Shero did everything humanly possible to take the heat off Sid.

[radoran]

@radoran "There might also be a reason the Pens haven't won a Cup without Crosby having a "veteran presence" around him."

You had me until that line. It seemed as if the whole arms race at the end of the season centered around veteran presence. Both Morrow and Iggy were long serving captains with a rep for leadership, Shero did everything humanly possible to take the heat off Sid.

Well, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there are no guarantees.

I think bringing Morrow AND Iginla in was a DIRECT result of the team losing its collective composure against the Flyers.

BUT, Guerin was brought in early in Crosby's tenure as captain and not to a team that was a complete, total reflection of it's captain on the ice. I believe Crosby can and probably "should" win another Cup or two. But bringing in Guerin (whom I view as an "andreychuk" type of player at this stage of his career) was a different move from bringing in two guys who still were hoping/desperate to have their names put on the Cup.

Whether he does depends on how he grows as a captain.

[jammer2]

@radoran "I think bringing Morrow AND Iginla in was a DIRECT result of the team losing its collective composure against the Flyers."

Excellent point, the more I think about it, the more I believe it to be true. They needed guys who would help prevent a repeat of the "meltdown".

Valid point on Guerin also, he was a tremendous leader, especially near the end of this career when he wheels went south and he didn't find the back of the net with much regularity. I would not go as far to say that he re-invented himself (cause he was always a great leader in his own right), but rather he found other ways to contribute. Guerin was VERY underrated through most of his career, tons of respect for that guy.

[Polaris922]

Well, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there are no guarantees.

I think bringing Morrow AND Iginla in was a DIRECT result of the team losing its collective composure against the Flyers.

BUT, Guerin was brought in early in Crosby's tenure as captain and not to a team that was a complete, total reflection of it's captain on the ice. I believe Crosby can and probably "should" win another Cup or two. But bringing in Guerin (whom I view as an "andreychuk" type of player at this stage of his career) was a different move from bringing in two guys who still were hoping/desperate to have their names put on the Cup.

Whether he does depends on how he grows as a captain.

You're way off base with insinuating Crosby is somehow the reason they haven't won again. The general lack of discipline by the team was widespread and a failure of the coaching staff to focus and adjust the game plan to your Flyers NOT being the goons from previous seasons.

This past year they again refused to adjust to the Bruins defensive set, which is hardly a blame Crosby moment. The man has the respect of every player on that team, and that is what your captain needs.

I don't think Giroux failed you guys as a captain this past season. I think Holmgren failed you as a GM and then Laviolette was forced to overplay Bryzgalov as a result. Injuries hampered, and no transition game or offensive ability from your defense sealed the deal. Hardly on Giroux...

[aziz]

I mean, it's been pointed out that Crosby was a captain very young. At not quite 22, he was carrying the Stanley Cup as captain of the Pens.

The same year, on the same date, Richards was 24 and captain of the Flyers...who were golfing.

that had a whole lot to do with the team around him than crosby as captain. crosby isn't, imo, a very good captain. i think a fair share of his team's collective meltdowns over the last couple of playoff seasons can be dropped on his doorstep as an ineffective leader. a counterproductive leader, even. still, put enough talent on one team and it really doesn't matter, they are going to win a bunch of games.

Anyway, how does one KNOW whether a player is going to be a good NHL captain until actually making him an NHL captain and giving him the opportunity to succeed or fail?

you can watch him for many years and see how he deals with things. a guy like pronger didn't need a letter on his chest, he handled pressure, handled the media, brought stability to the team on the ice and in the lockerroom, and his teammates looked to him for direction. it was obvious by watching how he handled all of those things that chris pronger would make a good captain. richards was given the C, and only after did we start to see how he dealt with media scrutiny. how he dealt with a struggling team. how he dealt with criticism. how he dealt with another alpha dog on the roster. how he dealt with fractures in his team.

it isn't about age, it is about having taken enough time evaluating a player's leadership qualities to know that he has the right makeup to handle the job. it isn't about age, but taking that mentioned time tends to have the player in his late twenties when you know enough to trust the team to him. prior to that, you just don't know, and i can't understand why you'd want to pin a C on a guy about whom you just don't know.

[aziz]

Both Morrow and Iggy were long serving captains with a rep for leadership, Shero did everything humanly possible to take the heat off Sid.

thing is, crosby is no longer a princeling. he is king, now, and no one can tell him different. a veteran presence around him no longer has any effect.

[jammer2]

@aziz "you can watch him for many years and see how he deals with things. a guy like pronger didn't need a letter on his chest, he handled pressure, handled the media, brought stability to the team on the ice and in the lockerroom, and his teammates looked to him for direction. it was obvious by watching how he handled all of those things that chris pronger would make a good captain. richards was given the C, and only after did we start to see how he dealt with media scrutiny. how he dealt with a struggling team. how he dealt with criticism. how he dealt with another alpha dog on the roster. how he dealt with fractures in his team.

it isn't about age, it is about having taken enough time evaluating a player's leadership qualities to know that he has the right makeup to handle the job. it isn't about age, but taking that mentioned time tends to have the player in his late twenties when you know enough to trust the team to him. prior to that, you just don't know, and i can't understand why you'd want to pin a C on a guy about whom you just don't know."

What a great answer, nothing to add but that was nicely crafted. Everything is great while you're filling the net and the team is flourishing, the *true* test of character comes through dealing with adversity. Sadly, the Flyers knew nothing about how Mike would respond to that kinda stuff, cause they rushed into the decision without having the proper variables to factor into the equation.

[aziz]

The man has the respect of every player on that team, and that is what your captain needs.

he also needs to know how to keep his players focused and on target. when he, himself, is an emotional mess, lashing out and doing everything but playing the game, having the respect of every player on the team is a negative, because they all follow suit. and then you have an immensely talented team too busy acting the bunch of fools to bother with beating the other team on the scoreboard.

[jammer2]

@Polaris922 "The man has the respect of every player on that team, and that is what your captain needs. "

Sorry, but I don't think that is true. I'd venture to guess that while he was swatting gloves and acting like a spoiled brat, more than a few teammates quietly, and internally said "*this* is the guy who is leading us, the guy who can't keep his eyes on the prize?" No one came out and said it, cause it would be a one way ticket out of town, but you can bet your last buck at least some of this teammates were thinking the same thing as every fan...that he showed a startling lack of control and displayed very uncaptain like qualities.

[radoran]

You're way off base with insinuating Crosby is somehow the reason they haven't won again. The general lack of discipline by the team was widespread and a failure of the coaching staff to focus and adjust the game plan to your Flyers NOT being the goons from previous seasons.

This past year they again refused to adjust to the Bruins defensive set, which is hardly a blame Crosby moment. The man has the respect of every player on that team, and that is what your captain needs.

I don't think Giroux failed you guys as a captain this past season. I think Holmgren failed you as a GM and then Laviolette was forced to overplay Bryzgalov as a result. Injuries hampered, and no transition game or offensive ability from your defense sealed the deal. Hardly on Giroux...

Great leaders step up in those situations.

Great players are great players.

You are free to disagree, but Messier won a Cup without Gretzky.

Gretzky never won a Cup without Messier.

[ruxpin]

@aziz. " it isn't about age, it is about having taken enough time evaluating a player's leadership qualities to know that he has the right makeup to handle the job. it isn't about age, but taking that mentioned time tends to have the player in his late twenties when you know enough to trust the team to him. prior to that, you just don't know, and i can't understand why you'd want to pin a C on a guy about whom you just don't know."

—----------—

Let's try Toewa then if you don't like the Crosby example. Waiting until his late twenties you've already missed out on two cups. I'll go back to Yzerman again too. Yes, Yzerman wasn't a great captain early (although no one seems to want to acinowledge that) , but they had the patience to wait almost a decade to figure out the team around him.

There's others. Pronger himself was captain of the Blues at 23. The 23 year old Pronger was a LOT more similar to Richards than you're making out. The 23 year old Pronger would compare poorly to the late 30s version.

Bob Clarke was Flyer captain at 23. We all know how that sucked. What did he do before that??

The age / waiting thing is a truly silly argument. There are many readibly. citabe success stories. Age has nothing to do with it, nor does experience before the NHL. Waiting to be "sure" often means waiting too long.

It comes down to three factors that make /break a captain, only one of which is completely under the player's control:

1) the team he plays with. There has to be a well built team around him. This was significantly lacking, frankly, when Richards was here. Finals schminals. They sucked most of that year and barely made the playoffs. Other teams did the heavy lifting and they got a little hot. That's the truth. It would have been a Cup win if they had won two more games and I would have enjoyed the Parade, hut it's still the truth.

2) Right time and place. You can have a great guy who could potentially be a great captain but maybe wrong team, wrong coach, wrong time in a guy's development. Whatever. The problem with this is you don't necessarily know it without hindsight.

3) the player just simply shrinks from the role. It could be because of factors 1 and/or 2. It could be something personal/constitutional about the guy. Some just fall off their horse when reaching for the ring.

But it's no hard and fast rule about age. If so, Clarke would NEVER have captained a Cup team under your rule of thumb. I don't think they win those Cups with another captain, either.

There was no particular aged-based reason to assume Richards would fail going in. I had big concerns at the time and never liked him for captain. Hut it wasn't about age. It was about HIM being the wrong choice for that team at that time. And sonething I thought I perceived about Richards that made me think he wasn't quite mature enough. Maturity and age are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they are not interchangeable either. (I agree with much of what you said with Crosby). The problems with Richards SHOULD have been foreseeable to management, but the problem was not age in and of itself.

[radoran]

@aziz. " it isn't about age, it is about having taken enough time evaluating a player's leadership qualities to know that he has the right makeup to handle the job. it isn't about age, but taking that mentioned time tends to have the player in his late twenties when you know enough to trust the team to him. prior to that, you just don't know, and i can't understand why you'd want to pin a C on a guy about whom you just don't know."

—----------—

Let's try Toewa then if you don't like the Crosby example. Waiting until his late twenties you've already missed out on two cups. I'll go back to Yzerman again too. Yes, Yzerman wasn't a great captain early (although no one seems to want to acinowledge that) , but they had the patience to wait almost a decade to figure out the team around him.

If the Flyers were willing to "wait it out" Richards and Crater probably wouldn't have their names on the Cup.

Yet.

[ruxpin]

If the Flyers were willing to "wait it out" Richards and Crater probably wouldn't have their names on the Cup.

Yet.

There's no probably about it. They wouldn't. I don't quite follow the piint though.

[aziz]

There was no particular aged-based reason to assume Richards would fail going in.

i'm just saying, i see no reason to ever be in the position to assume one way or the other. maybe its just my thing, though. i think a great captain has a minor positive effect on an otherwise well-constructed team...while a bad captain has a major negative effect. a great leader is going to be a great leader whether he has a C on his chest or not. either way, the team will reap the benefit of his leadership. a bad leader with a C on his chest suddenly gets authority with which to lead poorly. towes is a good captain, but i don't know that is any particular reason the hawks won cups...and pronger was doing his thing to full effect with a piddly little A. crosby, on the other hand, inspired his team to act like 4 yearolds for the bruins series, and richards dragged the team through his bunch of self involved drama.

that's how it works to my mind, anyway. and that being the case, with little possible upside but a lot of downside, a team should only gamble when the game is pretty well fixed and you know your guy can do the job well.

and, like i've said, a guy who earnestly wants to do a great job but has his plate pretty well full trying to elevate his personal game to elite level, there's a good sized risk of some try-hard that can be less than great for everyone.

Edited August 20, 2013 by aziz

[Polaris922]

@aziz

@jammer2

@radoran

They all go through growing pains. There have been no locker room melt downs, no troubling news or allegations, and teammates publicly support him 100%. He shoulders responsibility when they lose and gives others credit when they win. He's young, yes, and not perfect, but he's also the youngest captain to win a Cup in history. You can't condemn him for team failings with veteran players then give credit for team success to everyone else in the same process.

Honestly I'll take him over most other captains in the league right now despite his learning curve. The point remains that young captains go through ups and downs as well as anybody, your own Giroux no different. Not giving him the C when they did would've been a joke. Anybody else handed the letter would've been a false leader, as Giroux established himself that season as the focal point of your squad. He was your best player and leader on the ice.

So last season was tough for several reasons, but in my opinion, none of them Giroux's fault or things he could change. I think questioning his appointment after one sour half season is ridiculous, but its what I've learned Flyers fans like to do to pass the time.

[radoran]

There's no probably about it. They wouldn't. I don't quite follow the piint though.

You might not "actually" know what would have happened with a team the second season after a Stanley Cup final with a goalie who just might be able to put up a Vezina caliber season.

It's a lot to think about, but just think if they didn't trade Richards and Crater to sign Bryzgalov and kept Bob.

Hmmmm....